Bill authors abort provision

Last week, the U.S. Senate passed the conference report that outlaws an abortion procedure known as dilation and extraction. When President Bush signs it into law, it will be the first federal ban on a type of abortion.\nThe editorial staff takes no position on this bill's core, which bans a procedure you might be familiar with under its more common name, "partial-birth abortion." The procedure is generally performed during the second trimester of pregnancy, involving the puncturing of the skull of a fetus and removing its brain. If you can avoid having such a procedure, we believe you definitely should.\nBut to take a stance on whether we support or decry the bill as a whole would unnecessarily open a typical pro-life/pro-choice argument. We believe a general debate of abortion would distract from the specific discussion of the faults in this particular bill, and why poor political tactics employed by its authors put it in jeopardy.\nWe make this assertion based on Stenberg v. Carhart, a Supreme Court case from 2000, in which the high court struck down a similar law in Nebraska. In the 5-4 ruling, the Court said the language was overly vague and it lacked a health exemption for the woman (as required in previous court judgments Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey).\nThe Court wrote, "The State cannot prohibit a person from obtaining treatment simply by pointing out that most people do not need it."\nWe agree and believe the health exemption is necessary. The loss of one life is sad, but two should be avoided.\nThe authors of the federal bill clarified the exact procedure they want outlawed, but left out the health exemption on the basis of "facts and findings" that state this procedure is "never necessary to preserve the health of a woman."\nIf such were the case, and the authors were serious about banning this procedure, they would have included the court-required exemption with little hesitation. If the very findings their argument is based on are correct and it would never be performed for health reasons, the inclusion of the health exemption would offer no threat to the law and would allow it to pass judicial muster.\nDavid J. Garrow, a professor of law at Emory University who is an expert in abortion cases, said, "The absence of an all-encompassing health exception means [this law] is D.O.A." (www.nytimes.com)\nBy attacking the separation of powers and authority of courts, Congress has made a serious political error. By pompously proclaiming that they won't accept the Court's grounds for interpreting abortion law and that it should be changed to accept this bill, Congress is treading rough water.\nThe 281 House members and 64 senators who voted to approve this bill (and President Bush once he signs it) should not be surprised when the Court strikes down this law. If they had good-natured intentions and weren't attempting to undermine the third branch of our government, the health provision would be included. Only then should this bill be law.